pc86

What is it you're being prevented from discussing?

I don't think "you can do whatever you want other than just turn around and sell a chat wrapper for this" makes it immediately not open weights. Could it be more open? Sure. That doesn't mean it's misleading or a lie and I would strong disagree that it's "not being remotely open."

I agree 100%, but I keep going back to the blast radius of a compromised CA and my gut instinct is still "get rid of it and push a hotfix" but I completely acknowledge it's a lot more complicated to ship a MacOS update than just branch off of master and push a new commit, and my experience is almost entirely the latter.

This seems important enough to just send out a patch update that removes the cert and does nothing else. But apparently at least a couple people at Apple disagree; or, something I'm not familiar with makes that type of update impossible.

I expect law enforcement to find a crime, then find the perpetrator. You expect them to find a person they (or someone powerful) doesn't like, and find a crime to suit. That's fine, it even makes sense. Most tyrants don't believe they're actually tyrants.

At the risk of feeding the trolls...

> If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments

How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?

Capone actually did evade taxes, though. Nobody "construed [it] to have been committed." It was a real crime.

If you think something is bad for society but it's not legal, you make it illegal. You don't make up false crimes and arrest people for those. That's what tyrants and sociopaths do.

Something can be both simple to execute and extremely difficult to execute well. Simple and easy are not synonymous.

> High-value technical audiences aren't Googling for educational articles, videos, and courses. They're just asking LLMs, and getting answers.

You're right, but the high-value audiences are also looking at the sources the LLMs cite, guiding the LLMs to use specific source and exclude others (even if it's just "eschew blogspam and listicles" in the prompt). So being one of those sources is still valuable. Perhaps less so, but it's not without value.

What crime has been committed?

Presumably it's here because people think it's interesting and want to discuss it.

What kind of autism is it that makes someone dig into the specific technical implications of a joke about sleeping in a bed someone took a shit in?

Yeah I'm not sure the alternative would be better. You will always have calls that don't fit neatly into the "crime" "fire" or "injury" buckets. Of the three of those whose time I would want to take up dealing with something in the margins it makes complete sense for it to be a police officer, if for no other reason than there are a lot more of them than there are paramedics or [professional] firefighters in most areas. Downstream of that the potential negatives of having 1-2 paramedics dealing with nonsense and unavailable for other calls seem much higher than the negatives of having 1-2 cops unavailable for some period of time.

Maybe San Francisco should upgrade their tech to be on par with Kansas

GDPR is a great example of EU authorities pretending that an EU law applies to companies without an EU presence.

Also, if you get the US to sign an agreement saying they will do X if someone in the US violates a German law, that's exactly what would happen. It doesn't happen because the US doesn't typically sign those agreements unless there's a comparable US law.

I don't mean this flippantly, but it's usually whoever you're writing the check to. My first home had the mortgage sold within a week, and someone else started taking the money out of my account.

I think the content of my post, and the post I'm replying, makes it pretty obvious. What has you confused?

This is shifting the goal posts. You said this will continue to happen as long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts[0], congress[1], or the whitehouse [2; sic] - which kind of implies (actually not kind of, it directly implies) that if only there were some more Democrats around this wouldn't happen. So "both parties do this" is absolutely a valid criticism of your point and one you probably have to address.

[0] Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.

[1] Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes

[2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?

Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.

Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.

It's possible this is a distinction without a difference, but Disney and Netflix provide a service and the data they are selling is integral* to providing that service, meaning they're going to have that data regardless. If you're okay with anyone selling any of your data, it probably makes sense for Netflix to sell data about what you watch on Netflix.

Samsung or Sony sell a physical product that does not need internet connectivity, or microphones, or telemetry, or any of that. They jam that stuff in there to increase profits and make it economically infeasible to sell what I think 80% of people on HN would buy if given the opportunity - a large flatscreen TV with no built-in connectivity whatsoever. So anything I can do to make me less profitable to them, I will do.

* For certain definitions, anyway.

Yeah I'm familiar with Citizens United but you already said "corporate donation." So what is a "corporate opinion" as a thing distinct from a donation?

What is a "corporate political opinion?"

This is all true and it's referring to immigration generally. This is a specific type of immigration so let's talk about that specific type and not every other type.

This is immigration to staff augmentation body shops that are doing $150k/yr programming jobs with the company taking 25% off the top. It's not "immigrants starting businesses," it's not "the economy overall" it's targeting immigration suppressing the wages of a specific sector.

I'm not tracking how you think getting of this particular visa program "weakens labor" when what it will actually do is strengthen labor by decreasing labor supply and increasing individual bargaining power of workers.

This is an insane comment. How does this "threaten Americans by condemning them to homelessness + death?"

Which part is incorrect?

I mean that, you're either saying he wasn't democratically elected, or that this move doesn't help domestic labor. The first is objectively false, and the second is covered in the most basic college economics courses.

Fewer people means less qualified applicants for the same jobs, which means wages go up. Maybe companies like Microsoft have enough dead weight that they will just absorb the losses in growth but most companies don't have that luxury and this is hitting staff aug body shops so it will hit mid market and small employers as well unless it gets overturned.

I think there are plenty of qualified and hard-working people in China, I'm not sure this change would increase the number of people there the same way it might in places like Europe or India.

In the best case we could hope this will lead to increased wages to American citizens, but realistically I think the most likely impact is it pisses a lot of people off, causes a lot of headaches for a lot of people, and has no real impact for most.

Edit: Would love to hear a coherent argument as to why my comment is off topic and deserving of downvotes but I'm sure that won't happen.

Even if this absolute nonsense is accurate (it's not), you're agreeing with me. I said there's not a category difference between $12M and $85M in this context. And you're saying $100M is where it starts being different.

This seems like a distinction without a difference. In the context of CEOs sacrificing the greater good for their bonus, [basically] nobody has done that for a $250k bonus. We're often talking 8 figures, tens of millions of dollars.

Is this really a categorically different thing if we're talking about $85 million vs. $12 million?

> I'm assuming that, if this rumor is true, somebody in the Trump campaign forced somebody at NASA to do this out of some misguided nostalgia.

Why would you assume that?